Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition affecting women. It results from weakening of the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissues and is particularly common among postmenopausal women. This weakening can lead to descent of the pelvic organs, including the bladder, uterus, and rectum, into or beyond the vaginal canal, causing significant discomfort and impairment of quality of life. Vaginal prolapse surgery is a key therapeutic approach for severe cases of POP, aiming to restore pelvic anatomy and improve functional outcomes. Surgical interventions for vaginal prolapse can be broadly categorized into native tissue repair, mesh-augmented procedures, and obliterative techniques, each with distinct indications, benefits, and risks. While traditional colporrhaphy remains a widely used technique, the introduction of synthetic meshes has improved anatomical success rates, albeit with concerns regarding complications such as erosion and dyspareunia. This article provides an overview of current surgical techniques for vaginal prolapse repair, evaluating their outcomes and complications as well as recent developments in the field. Understanding these aspects is crucial for optimizing patient-centered treatment strategies and ensuring long-term success.

To compare clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients undergoing excision of polypropylene urogynaecological mesh for pain, mesh exposure or both.

Prospective, longitudinal cohort.

Academic tertiary referral centre.

Women undergoing complete vaginal mesh excision for mesh exposure and/or pain.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes assessing pain (visual analog scale, VAS), bother (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, PFDI) and functional impact (Pelvic Functional Impact Questionnaire, PFIQ) were collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months after complete mesh excision. Outcomes were compared by mesh type (sling, prolapse [transvaginal or sacrocolpopexy mesh], both) and complication (pain, exposure, both).

'Much better' or 'Very much better' on Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) up to 2 years after removal.

Of 173 women, 48 underwent removal for pain, 27 for exposure and 98 for exposure plus pain. 'Moderate to severe' baseline symptoms were reported by 75%; the most prevalent and severe symptom was dyspareunia. Patients with pain alone were most bothered (PFDI median 234.2, interquartile range 83, P = 0.02) and had the highest functional impact (PFIQ median 181, interquartile range 138, P < 0.001). After excision, only 33.3% of women with pain alone reported 'improved' symptoms (PGI-I), versus 73.9% with exposure, 58.3% with exposure plus pain (P = 0.03) with no differences in PGI-I by mesh type. VAS scores decreased in all groups, but PFDI and PFIQ did not improve in pain patients.

In women experiencing a pain complication after urogynaecological mesh insertion, mesh removal often does not improve symptoms.

Only 33% of women with pain complications have improved symptoms after urogynaecological mesh removal.

Mesh-related complications resulting from pelvic organ prolapse (POP) reconstruction operations may be a devastating experience leading to multiple and complex interventions.

The aim of the study was to describe the experience and time frame of management of mesh-related complications in women treated for POP or stress urinary incontinence in a tertiary center.

1,530 cases of mesh-related complications were accessed regarding their clinical presentation, number of surgeries, and timeline of surgical treatments to treat multiple clinical complaints until the ultimate operation where all the meshes were removed in a single tertiary center.

The studied population revealed to be a highly referred one with only 10.2% of the cases implanted at our center. Clinical presentation varied widely with 48.7% referring pain as the chief complaint, while 31.3% complained of voiding dysfunctions, 2.5% reported genital prolapses, 2.2% complained of vaginal problems, and 1.2% noted intestinal problems as the main clinical complaint. Only 4.8% of the cases presented mesh erosion at examination; 57.8% of the cases required more than 1 operation to address the mesh-related problems. Sixty-eight cases had more than 10 operations up to complete removal. Three clusters of patients could be identified: (i)-those from whom the mesh was promptly removed after clinical problems emerged, (ii) those with slowly evolving problems, and (iii) those with escalating problems despite treatment attempts.

Mesh-related complications after pelvic floor reconstruction are an evolving disease with diverse clinical presentation. The identified time-related problems and the multiple failed attempts to treat their complications warrant attention with continuous monitoring of these patients and aggressive removal of the mesh if the clinical complaint cannot be swiftly managed.

To determine the sensitivity to change of question 6 (Q6) of the modified short form version of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) before and after synthetic sling removal (SSR).

Following IRB approval, a prospectively maintained database of mid-urethral sling (MUS) complications identified women with UDI-6 Q6 data before and after SSR. Q6 were compared pre- and postoperatively and against patient self-report of pain in women undergoing -SSR for pain (SSR-P) and in a control group when pain was not the primary indication for SSR (SSR-C). Women with missing pre-SSR or insufficient (<6 months) follow-up measures of pain were excluded. Three hypotheses were tested. (1) Correlation of Q6 scores with patients' self-reported pain pre- and post-SSR, (2) Higher pre-SSR Q6 scores in the SSR-P group than in the SSR-C group, and (3) Decrease in Q6 scores in the SSR-P group.

Between 2005 and 2017, 116 of 435 women referred to our institution met study criteria. Q6 scores were significantly (P <.0001) associated with self-reported pain with increasing likelihood of self-reporting pain as Q6 score increased. Mean pre-SSR Q6 scores in SSR-C (n = 42) was 1.0 ± 1.2 while mean pre-SSR Q6 scores in SSR-P (n = 74) was 2.3 ± 1.1 (P <.0001). Mean improvement in Q6 score after SSR was -0.19 ± 1.2 (P = 0.3) in SSR-C and -0.88 ± 1.4 (P <0.0001) in SSR-P.

In women undergoing SSR for MUS-related complications, Q6 scores were correlated to self-reported pain and responsive to surgical intervention for pain relief.

Transvaginal mesh kits were widely used to treat pelvic organ prolapse for over a 10-year period in the early 2000s. Due to safety concerns and FDA regulations, these mesh kits are no longer available for use. Thus, current Obstetricians and Gynecologists are likely to encounter these meshes, but may have no previous experience or exposure to the devices making it difficult to adequately monitor, counsel, and care for patients that underwent these types of procedures. This review highlights the most commonly used transvaginal mesh kit types, provides insight into signs and symptoms related to transvaginal mesh complications, and provides guidance for management of mesh complications.

Not all transvaginal mesh will give rise to a complication. If complications do occur, treatment options range from conservative observation to total mesh excision. Management must be customized to an individual patient's needs and goals.

Transvaginal mesh kits promised increased durability of surgical repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Safety concerns over time caused these kits to no longer be available for use. Practicing Obstetricians and Gynecologists should be aware of the history of transvaginal mesh and the signs and symptoms of mesh complications.

Persistent postoperative pain (PPOP) is the second most common reason for a patient to seek care at a chronic pain center. Many of the patients seen with prolapse or incontinence are at risk for developing PPOP as a result of the surgeries done for these problems. The pathophysiology of this disabling pain disorder is well understood, and the risk factors are easy to identify. Once identified, perioperative interventions can be offered to attempt to prevent PPOP.

Evaluation of articles obtained using a MEDLINE search involving chronic pain and PPOP, including prevalence, pathophysiology, and prevention was reviewed. The concept of central censitization and the key role it plays in chronic pain disorders were also reviewed. A history of chronic pain (anywhere) as well as findings of levator myalgia, allodynia, and hypertonic pelvic floor disorders is critical in identifying patients at risk for PPOP.

Identification of patients at risk allows the clinician to educate the patient about the risk of PPOP and the various perioperative interventions that can be used to prevent its development. Further studies will be required to determine how effective these interventions are in patients undergoing surgery for incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse.

Female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse are prevalent conditions in adult women. Among treatment alternatives, more traditional methods of surgical intervention have been supplanted by synthetic polypropylene mesh kits. However, novel complications with mesh-related exposure, pelvic pain alone or with dyspareunia, and increased incidence of revision surgeries, resulted in 2 FDA warnings on transvaginal mesh use for prolapse repair. This review examines the anatomy of the vagina and urethra, the etiology of pain related to mesh use, and the relevant surgical techniques for management of this complication along with their outcomes.

We sought to examine the risk of recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after suburethral sling mesh removal or excision.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who were continent before removal or excision of synthetic midurethral slings; this cohort of 278 subjects was much larger than seen in previous such studies. Patients with preoperative incontinence, additional vaginal mesh placements, prior mesh revision/excision, existing SUI, and prior pelvic radiation or fistula were excluded. Only patients with follow-up detailing continence status within 1 year of mesh removal were examined.

Of 278 patients, 117 (70 retropubic and 47 transobturator) midurethral sling removals met inclusion criteria. Demographic data were comparable between groups. Presenting symptoms were also similar, with similar extrusion rates. Chronic pain was the reason for mesh removal in 80% of cases. In 1 year of follow-up, 38.6% (27/70) retropubic and 34.0% (16/47) transobturator sling removals had SUI requiring an anti-incontinence procedure. Total sling mesh removal was performed in 51.4% of retropubic vaginal mesh and 51.1% of transobturator mesh cases.

In this continent population with sling complications, approximately 1/3 developed significant SUI within 1 year of mesh removal requiring anti-incontinence surgery, regardless of the amount or type of mesh removed. Total mesh removal did not increase SUI risk.

We describe and categorize complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification system in patients who underwent vaginal mesh excision surgery.

With institutional review board approval we retrospectively reviewed the records of 277 patients who underwent vaginal mesh extraction between 2007 and 2015 at a single institution. Surgical complications were stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Complications were perioperative (prior to discharge) or postoperative (within 90 days). Indications for initial mesh placement, mesh revision procedure, time to resolution and medical comorbidities were assessed.

Of the 277 patients 47.3% had at least 1 surgical complication, including multiple complications in 7.2%. A total of 155 complications were identified, which were grade II in 49.0% of cases, grade I in 25.8%, grade IIIb in 18.7%, grade IIIa in 5.2% and grade IVa in 1.3%. No grade IVb or V complications were identified. The indication for initial mesh placement did not significantly affect complication frequency. Patients who underwent combined stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse mesh revision surgeries had an increased frequency of complications compared to those treated with mesh revision surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence alone (p = 0.045). Most complications occurred postoperatively and resolved by 90 days. Age, body mass index, smoking status and diabetes were not associated with increased complications.

Despite the complexity of mesh revision surgery most complications are minor. Serious complications may develop, emphasizing the need for proper patient counseling and surgical experience when performing these procedures.

In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first surgical mesh product specifically designed for the surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse and between 2004 and 2008, the use of vaginal mesh in gynecologic surgery was at its peak. Unfortunately, the rise in transvaginal mesh use was accompanied by a surge of adverse events and mesh-related complications. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration put forth several efforts to regulate the manufacturing of vaginal mesh products. These notifications have been supported by several gynecologic societies, and recommendations now exist not only on the placement of mesh and patient selection, but also on the evaluation and management of mesh-related complications. In addition, data on outcomes following management of these complications are now emerging.

Transvaginal placements of synthetic mid-urethral slings and vaginal meshes have largely superseded traditional tissue repairs in the current era because of presumed efficacy and ease of implant with device 'kits'. The use of synthetic material has generated novel complications including mesh extrusion, pelvic and vaginal pain and mesh contraction. In this review, our aim is to discuss the management, surgical techniques and outcomes associated with mesh removal.

Recent publications have seen an increase in presentation of these mesh-related complications, and reports from multiple tertiary centers have suggested that not all patients benefit from surgical intervention.

Although the true incidence of mesh complications is unknown, recent publications can serve to guide physicians and inform patients of the surgical outcomes from mesh-related complications. In addition, the literature highlights the growing need for a registry to account for a more accurate reporting of these events and to counsel patients on the risk and benefits before proceeding with mesh surgeries.

Because there is reluctance to operate for pain, we evaluated midterm outcomes of vaginal mesh and synthetic suburethral tape removed for pain as the only indication.

After receiving institutional review board approval we reviewed a prospective database of women without a neurogenic condition who underwent surgery for vaginal mesh or suburethral tape removal with a focus on pain as the single reason for removal and a minimum 6-month followup. The primary outcome was pain level assessed by a visual analog scale (range 0 to 10) at baseline and at each subsequent visit with the score at the last visit used for analysis. Parameters evaluated included demographics, mean time to presentation and type of mesh or tape inserted.

From 2005 to 2013, 123 patients underwent surgical removal of mesh (69) and suburethral tape (54) with pain as the only indication. Mean followup was 35 months (range 6 to 59) in the tape group and 22 months (range 6 to 47) in the mesh group. The visual analog scale score decreased from a mean preoperative level of 7.9 to 0.9 postoperatively (p = 0.0014) in the mesh group and from 5.3 to 1.5 (p = 0.00074) in the tape group. Pain-free status, considered a score of 0, was achieved in 81% of tape and 67% of mesh cases, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

When pain is the only indication for suburethral tape or vaginal mesh removal, a significant decrease in the pain score can be durably expected after removal in most patients at midterm followup.